It is generally known that restraining a house pet, especially a cat, for washing, grooming or flea treatment purposes can be a difficult chore. Problems are often encountered when the pet, resisting the procedure, breaks free while wet and covered with lather. In addition, if the a cat is frightened, it may bite and claw its handler in an attempt to escape a threatening restraint.
There are several good reasons for washing and grooming a household cat. For one, generally the only effective way to de-flea a cat is to bathe the animal using medicated shampoo or dip. Failure to de-flea can result in flea infestation of the house interior and, if fleas are ingested by the cat, a tape worm malady in the cat can result. In addition, some people who react allergically in the presence of a cat are reacting, not to the animal, but to the animal's dander. Periodic washing of the cat can help correct the dander problem.
For these and other reasons, even though it is recognized that restraining a cat for washing or grooming can be a very challenging matter, pet grooming is often attempted by the owner since the alternative is a trip to a professional, such as a veterinarian, which can be expensive and inconvenient. Of course, it is not only the individual pet owner who faces this problem, pet shop proprietors and operators of animal shelters similarly have a need for a technique for washing and grooming cats in an effective and efficient manner.
Further, it is sometimes the case, when grooming or washing a cat in the absence of a suitable restraint device, two people are required, one to hold the animal and the other to perform the grooming or washing.
In view of the foregoing, it is clear that a need exists for a convenient, effective small animal restraint capable of use by a single individual.
In recognition of problems relating to animal restraint, various techniques for restraining small animals have been developed. In this regard, reference may be made to U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,539,024; 4,140,080; 4,762,085; and 4,917,047. In general, the inventions disclosed by these patents relate to small animal enclosures. However, they are not generally suitable for cases where washing or grooming is desired. Thus, while the inventions disclosed in the above mentioned patents have some utility, they are sometimes complicated, expensive and difficult to use. More importantly, while such conventional devices may be capable of restraining an animal, they are generally not readily usable when it is not restraint but washing or grooming the animal that is intended.
Another limitation of prior art restraint techniques is that some of them, while capable of effective animal restraint, accomplish such restraint in a manner as to cause the animal to fear the restraining apparatus. An example of a prior art device for restraining animals is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,094,101. Here, the animal, such as a cat, is placed in an enclosure and restrained, at least in part, when its tail is held and clamped in place.
While the invention of U.S. Pat. No. 3,094,101 may have utility for a one time inoculation of a cat, it is not likely that the cat will readily cooperate in its use a second time. This is also the case in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,770,127 and 5,233,939 in which the inventions therein disclosed utilize one or more movable walls to squeeze the cat so it can be held for inoculation. If repeated use of such devices is attempted, it will be noted that the animal learns quickly to avoid the restraint and sometimes bites or claws the handler in order to escape. This development, of course, renders the restraint virtually useless for any subsequent use involving the threatened animal.
Another serious limitation of conventional restraints is that they generally require the animal to be restrained to enter through an opening in the restraint. This, in itself is often frightening to a cat which will frequently resist attempts to force it into the restraint. Thus, it would be very desirable to have an animal restraint which could be used without the necessity of requiring the animal to enter the restraint.
In view of the foregoing, it would be highly desirable to have a cat restraint which would securely hold the animal in a safe, comfortable and non-threatening manner. Such an invention would enable the user to employ conveniently a brush or other grooming implement. Desirably, such an invention could be used repetitively with the same animal since it would be readily acceptable to the animal and, in addition, would be usable conveniently by one person acting alone.